If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.

Portland offered Roy Hibbert a lot of money.
George Hill on the other hand was signed rather quickly, then PD almost rioted when it was disclosed how much he was signed for.
Dwight Howard was going to New Jersey
Paul George spent time in Vegas with the US Olympic Team instead of working on his ball handling.
Dwight Howard was going to Houston
Roy Hibbert talked to a radio producer in Portland who called him while Roy was eating breakfast with his family
Someone who was fortunately not the Pacers offered Eric Gordon a ******** of money. PD went into mourning.
The required OJ Mayo to Indiana speculation occured
Dwight Howard was going to Istanbul
A "Just Say No to Chris Kaman" Twitter campaign was started
Someone chased down Roy Hibbert in the Washington to stop him from getting on a plane to Portland
Paul George spent time working on his shot instead of working on his ball handling.
The Pacers traded Darren and Dahntay for Ian Mahimi. PD lost what little teneous grip of reality it had left.
OJ Mayo signed with Dallas
The Magic nearly traded Dwight Howard to themselves.
DJ Augustine signed and most of PD was still too busy rioting over the Mahimi deal to really take notice.
Gerald Green signed and everyone started following one of two fake Gerald Green twitters.
Roy and George signed and PD rioted because Scola and Brand were amnestied right after the press conference.
People complained about Paul George not working on his ball handling
Somebody resurrected a discussion about Brandon Rush's 3pt shooting
Someone accused a PDer of being Walshs' son in law
Dwight Howard was actually traded to LA
Paul George went to China and threw down a dunk that left Lebron in awe. People thought he should have been working on his ball handling instead.

... I think I'm up to August 25th...

Last edited by Sandman21; 09-23-2012, 12:30 PM.
Reason: sorry y'all guess I found an nonautoflagged word

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

Comment

You forgot that PG hired a coach to work on his handles. And he's actually been working on his handles since May. I guess since he didn't tweet that everyone just assumed he wasn't doing it.

Hill=slightly overpaid, but not grossly. I do think he would have gotten less if the Pacers let the market dictate Hill's salary instead of just offering him a deal within 24 hours after the start of the offseason.
Ian=Good deal. He put up #'s similar to Robin Lopez and Robin is making $1M more/yr.
Green=Great deal. Comes with an "if". If he plays like he did with the Nets, this is the steal of the summer.
DJ=Good deal. He was a starter for a bad team. I think he'll be a solid backup.

Drafted Plumlee - supposedly a Foster-clone, but they only drafted him cause he neverbarely played in college and he turned out an excellent draft workout by jumping out of the gym. Apparently a 7ft player that can jump really high is worth a first rounder now. Not to mention he's like 25 years old and still considered a project...yeah. Passed on guys that slipped like Moultrie, Teague and PJIII (could have been our version of RGIII, damn!). Def not my first, second, third, or fourth choice, I still think he ends up winning the backup PF spot by end of year, only cause I have 0 faith in Hans.
Drafted OJ - Pacers figured they were going to get an OJ on the team one way or the other. He's similar to Lance in size and strength, but can shoot and never passes the ball. Passed on other players with more talent like Will Barton and Quincy Miller. If the Pacers decide to keep Sam Young, I'm not even sure he makes the team (unless he's guaranteed).

Not a great draft, and while I'm critical, it wasn't a bad draft either. Hard to get good talent when you are picking late (which is a good thing), however, there were more talented guys on the board. I guess I'm tired of boring picks. Talented players don't normally come to Indiana. Sometimes you have to take a chance, especially when you already have a deep roster. PJIII and Quincy Miller/Will Barton could have just sat for a year or two honing their skills (gaining some weight). It's not like Plumlee or OJ will play a lot this year. Would have been smarter to bring in guys that have deep talent, but are projects. Just my opinion.

All in all, I think the Pacers had one hell of an offseason. You know that deep bench the Pacers were supposed to have last year? Well, they actually have a deep bench this year! Boom, baby!

Let's start the season already. At least I can start my season, Oct 2 when I get my copy of 2K13. Although My Player will get the starting job for the Pacers by the first 20-30 games. I only say this, cause I'm not sure if I'll suck in the Rookie Showcase to get drafted by the Pacers, or blow up get drafted as high as possible and work to get traded to Indiana (which has never been easy in previous 2Ks for some reason).

Comment

Plumlee's incredibly divisive. And he should be, I don't like the pick, but it's grown on me. A lot of "he didn't show his offensive arsenal at Duke" talk/turd polishing. I'm skeptical. But Brad Miller was the same way at Purdue, and we all know what kind of spot shooter he turned out to be, so there is a precedent.

Comment

Plumlee's incredibly divisive. And he should be, I don't like the pick, but it's grown on me. A lot of "he didn't show his offensive arsenal at Duke" talk/turd polishing. I'm skeptical. But Brad Miller was the same way at Purdue, and we all know what kind of spot shooter he turned out to be, so there is a precedent.

Miller was a productive offensive player at Purdue and later became an NBA all-star. Plumlee has shown far more athleticism but not so much skill.

Miller was an inside player at Purdue and became a prolific jump shooting big in the NBA. That's what I'm talking about.

Brad's issue was motivation, not ability. When he missed out at the draft I think he got a fire in his butt and that changed his fortunes.

Contrast that with Plumlee getting approval for whatever the F that was he was doing the last couple of years. To me this is more like expecting Hassan Whiteside to learn how to ball once he got to the NBA, and now he's been cut instead. Plumlee is closer to being Daniel Orton than Brad Miller at this point.

Very few guys underwhelm in college and then last in the NBA. Guys get drafted low, but often they performed well in college and just dismissed as an NBA prospect (Sam Young, Buddinger, etc). Sometimes they are foreign or have injury concerns. That's usually how you get a surprise. There's almost no "he did jack squat at a major program, but now he's dialed in". I mean compare Brad Miller's numbers to Plumlee.

In both cases the games/minutes those final 2 years only increased slightly, performance went up slightly for both in a standard progression of development you see with most college guys. Often that first or even 2nd year are low PT and then the final 2 seasons you see a big jump with some fine tuning improvement in that 2nd year of the 2.

Also while scoring is not a PFs thing, the simple fact is that even non-scoring NBA guys can typically score 12-16 a game in college because they are flat out better than everyone. If not great scorers they are at least the strongest, quickest and/or best jumpers.

This is the problem with projecting development success in the NBA on guys that haven't shown it after at least 3 years of college. If they are a great athlete how was it they weren't destroying the many non-NBA athletes they were competing against on most nights? On rebound putback dunks alone a strong jumper will rack up 6-8 points per game.